Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Dino

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Debate / Why Space Travel Is Plausible
« on: February 13, 2014, 08:26:59 PM »
According to relativity, when objects move extremely fast they become physically smaller relative to an observer who is not traveling as fast. This means that if a rocket moved fast enough its size would decrease. The moon isn't very big, of course. But if a rocket actually went fast enough to make it to the moon in a short period of time, that rocket would itself end up very small, and the astronauts walking on the surface of the moon would be teeny, tiny little astronauts hopping around.

This would also have interesting implications for the origin of the moon and other planets. It's possible the moon started as an ordinary Earth rock that was accidentally launched into space as a projectile during a dinosaur war millions of years ago. The rock wouldn't have had to travel extremely fast itself but could have been caught in some unusual winds high in the planosphere which deposited it in its current position. (The fact there is only one moon is evidence that a rare phenomenon took place; if the dinosaurs were projecting rocks at each other at high speeds like a rocket the sky would be littered with moons.)   

Why then would the wee astronauts on the moon see a circular Earth? Because the Earth is a disc and they are just wee astronauts high in the sky looking down at a great disc, which would appear the same as an orb directly below would.

When the astronauts returned to Earth, the reverse direction returned them to normal size. They had no reason to suspect they had merely walked on the surface of a prehistoric cannonball.

My day has been filled with people who normally don't even mention the subject gratuitously declaring that the Earth is not flat in my presence. I've seen and heard it mentioned several times in the media, colleagues have referred to it in mocking tones, and several neighbors who know I'm a flat earth believer have pointed fingers at and laughed at me while children were present.

Nevermind, of course, that there's zero connection between Columbus and the shape of the Earth in the first place.

If people disagree with my opinions, I'm fine with that. I'll try to help them see the truth, but if they can't I'll leave them alone about it. Yet it seems perfectly acceptable to treat flat-Earthers as a group like we were Gypsies.

I'll get over it, but I sure hate this incredibly stupid holiday. 

Last March there was a “repeat” of the Bedford level experiment conducted on Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela which I witnessed myself. The experiment sought to avoid the flaws of the earlier experiments by using modern technology and measuring at closer lateral increments. Markers were stretched out across 15 km of the lake 2 meters high atop buoys stationed at .5 km intervals on calm water. Theodolites equipped with lasers measured the height of each marker, moving the theodolite from station to station to measure the height of each marker as measured from the previous station by laser. The reason for the .5 km intervals was to minimize the effect of refracted light. Each marker station as well as the theodolite were equipped with accelerometers in order to calibrate for any swelling or compression of the water surface.   

The results were unambiguous: Over the entire 15 km no more than 2 cm of deviation from the flat line of the laser was observed. (The 2 cm is attributed to some light refraction.)  The conclusion is that either the Earth is flat or round yet many times larger than Round Earthers currently believe. (So I suppose the result is ambiguous if you want to believe the circumference of the Earth is at least 20 times greater than is currently believed.)

This direct measurement of the curvature (or lack thereof) of the Earth is more persuasive than any scientific theories which rely on indirect evidence for attempting to establish that the Earth is round (or any other shape).

Flat Earth Debate / Concluding that the Earth is in fact not flat
« on: September 30, 2012, 03:07:15 PM »
I've seen a lot of the earth, have traveled a lot in planes and cars and once in a boat. I've read a lot of the arguments on both sides of this debate. I've conducted experiments on my own. I've taken pictures and asked others to share their own thoughts and observations. I believe I've remained fairly open-minded all the while.

I tend to think RE theory doesn't hold up. There are too many loose ends. It requires one to assume a bunch of unlikely coincidences. It conflicts with the account in the Bible, etc., etc.

But there are plenty of places on Earth which do not look flat, so I am forced to conclude that the Earth is not flat but is almost flat. For instance: mountains. Also: The Grand Canyon.  Sure, the Earth is so big that the mountains and canyons probably iron out in the end but I still suspect that the Earth is only Almost Flat.

Flat Earth General / Scientocracy
« on: January 21, 2010, 04:47:37 PM »
Here's your problem:

"The great intellectual mistake of the 20th century is that its governments believed they were subsidizing science, when they were actually subsidizing scientocracy."

Flat Earth General / Round Earth Is Just a Peripheral Conspiracy
« on: January 18, 2010, 08:35:56 PM »
People keep asking what the motivation is behind RE conspiracy. Why NASA is motivated, etc. You don't understand because you are focusing on such a tiny piece of the puzzle. So let's be clear about this, k?

Elite bankers run the world. K? Not so hard to follow. Central banks are private. The Bank of England is a private institution. The Federal Reserve is a private bank. The Bundesbank, The Bank of Japan, etc., etc.

This oligarchy is looking out for its own interests, k? For instance, in the US, we see that Central Bankers tend to come from Goldman Sachs, just as all the financial advisers to the White House do. The government does not control things. This point needs to be made clear. The bankers control the government. in the US, in Europe, in Japan, in Russia. (In China there isn't even the attempt at a distinction.)

What has happened recently in the US? A government bailout of banks and a property grab of the auto and insurance industries. The USA is becoming as socialist as the Soviet Union was. This is because the Soviet Union won the cold war...

Round Earth conspiracy is small beer compared to all of this. Aerospace/defense is just a cash cow for central bankers. It is one--and only one-- of the easy ways for tax payer money to get transferred directly into banks. Direct transfers of money -- like we have seen over the past year -- is another way. The financial crisis of 2008 was just another scam to give central bankers/Wall Street more power. The government is now bigger and more beholden to lenders. Detroit is now completely in the hands of government. The insurance industry and health care industry are about to be completely controlled by the same group. Just imagine everything you learned about communist Russia and realize that it is happening here, right now.

The super-rich stay super-rich, at all costs and by any means necessary -- get it? Why is this so hard to understand? If you are a student of history at all you would realize that while all those countries in Europe kept fighting each other for so long, the royalty of each country kept marrying each other in order to consolidate power.  The people fight while the royalty plays and fucks and marries each other. It has always been this way.

The space race between Soviet Russia and "Democratic" America was merely another game used to tax the peasants and give the money to the super rich. Such games have been a constant throughout history.

The Round Earth conspiracy is only a side show. It isn't even a big deal. But it is part of the system and it is lucrative and THEY aren't going to give it up soon.

Quit believing everything you have learned in formal education your whole life. Formal education is the brainwashing process. Think for yourself for ONCE -- and quit believing THEIR LIES!   

Flat Earth General / Prepare to Be Cognitively Infiltrated
« on: January 18, 2010, 09:47:45 AM »

"In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.  This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists."

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Incoherence Theory
« on: January 07, 2010, 04:37:04 PM »
A problem with using evidence to prove, for instance, that the earth is round, is that one must first assume that reality is consistent. But what proof is there that reality is consistent? How do we know that the earth isn't flat for some observers and round for others? Perhaps, like quantum theory, the observation itself influences what is observed.

Flat Earth General / Has NASA been worth it?
« on: January 06, 2010, 06:09:27 PM »
For a moment let us assume there is no conspiracy and NASA is to be trusted. What benefit have they been to society? Have we gotten our hundreds of billions of dollars worth out of this investment? Does it make sense to continue to fund this operation, if indeed we really do?

So, other than velcro, tell us what NASA has given us of concrete value?

EDIT this thread belongs here because the answers may shed some indirect light on the likelihood NASA is not legit.

Flat Earth General / Absolute Proof the Earth is Flat
« on: January 01, 2010, 06:18:35 PM »
As I posted in my first thread here:

"But what really happens in the virtual lobbies of the Flat Earth Society is more twisted. There is probably not a single sincere proponent of Flat Earth Theory on the whole site. Rather, the forum seems to have been designed as a gigantic Troll bait. The presence of Trolls is openly acknowledged on the forum, as some important moderators of the site, Flatters and Rounders alike, have been unmasked. They have been spotted on hacked private forums, where they were boasting about their hoax. Apparently, the 'Flat-Earthers' who created the site were really Trolls who planned to attract Round-earthers, and confound them with silly arguments. Instead, other Trolls showed up and began arguing for both positions...

Even when a debate is obviously designed by Trolls and for Trolls, trolling is rarely acknowledged as the true purpose of the conversation. At Flat Earth Society, with trolling being endemic and conspicuous everywhere on the forum, participants take great care not to come out as Trolls. Flat-Earthers (most likely to be suspected of trolling) insist on the sincerity of their beliefs. Trolls being unmasked are a cause for scandal. The reason why everyone feigns to take the question of trolling so seriously is, of course, because accusations of trolling offer endless opportunities for trolling about trolling. This thread for example, is typical: everyone claims to be the only sincere defender of Flat/Round Earth Theory, and accuses everyone else of being a Troll."

Flat Earth Q&A / Do people live on the other side of the flat earth?
« on: January 01, 2010, 12:44:32 PM »
This wouldn't conform well with UA, but it could with other theories. Perhaps there are people living on the other side of the earth and down for them is up for us and vice-versa? And on the other side weighty objects would still fall down for them.

Might there be any way to ever determine what the other side of the earth looks like? If people live there, do you think there is a way we could contact them?

EDIT: Might it be possible to simply walk there? Maybe you could flip yourself around the edge. Maybe things are better over there, so anyone who has gone has chosen not to return. Maybe that's where all the dinosaurs went.

Or maybe that's where the dinosaurs have always lived! They never lived in this side! That would explain so much....

Flat Earth General / New Russian stunt
« on: December 30, 2009, 03:15:35 PM »

MOSCOW – Russia's space agency chief said Wednesday a spacecraft may be dispatched to knock a large asteroid off course and reduce the chances of earth impact, even though U.S. scientists say such a scenario is unlikely."

The Conspiracy's greatest difficulty is always providing the illusion of PURPOSE.

Flat Earth General / Global Wingers influence on our educational system
« on: December 29, 2009, 09:36:43 PM »
The problem starts in school. Young children, who probably have a survivalist instinct against walking off the edge of the planet, are taught the earth is round without even explaining that is only one theory! Our kids deserve better. I dont have a problem with them being exposed to RE theory as long as they are also taught such concepts as the anti-moon, UA and bendy light.

Most people are sheep. They go where u lead them. This is why nearly everyone today believes the earth is funny shaped instead of flat.

I suggest we come up with a FE curriculum that might at least be used by home schoolers, if not gubmint schools.

Flat Earth Q&A / With UA should we expect lower air pressure in the south?
« on: December 29, 2009, 02:42:01 PM »

Perhaps the stars do not spin in the sky. Perhaps they are fixed but the sun's orbit causes the light from the stars to bend with the revolution of the sun. Outside the orbit of the sun, the starlight will bend in one direction, while inside the sun's orbit the starlight bends in the opposite direction. Moreover, when starlight PASSES THROUGH the orbit of the sun, the light refracts at a constant coefficient of -.5, bending the light back in the other direction as it shines down to the earth.   

Flat Earth Debate / A Statistical Approach
« on: December 25, 2009, 07:18:30 PM »
One way of determining whether the earth is round or flat would be to measure its curvature in many pieces. For instance, we could measure the curvature of the earth in 100 meter intervals from east to west. Sure, any one measurement is going to give a more or less random result due to local topography (completely random if the earth is flat), but if we can gather enough measurements to make the sample size statistically significant, then we can infer from the average curvature whether or not the entire earth is likely to be curved or flat.

Scientists prefer theories which comport with Occam's Razor. The simpler and more elegant the theory, the more likely it is to be true. But why do scientists believe this to be the case? For obvious reasons: it is useful.

Currently accepted science is all about Occam's Razor. Elegance is compelling. But is elegance proof? Is it necessarily true that the truth be simple?

As we all know, Newton's theory of gravity was wrong. Dead wrong. Dead wrong? But wasn't it very, very close to being right? Like horseshoes and hand grenades, does close count in physics? Of course it does. Horseshoes and hand grenades are about physics.

But Newton's theory was wrong. How do we reconcile this with the facts, which just, just almost reconcile with the theory? Do we dismiss the theory altogether because it doesn't quite match the facts perfectly?

REers often think in terms of the theory of gravity or relativity when they attack FET. Yet they know well that their own theories are wrong or at least incomplete in describing the true movement of objects. The arguments they tend to make is: RE theory is very good at predicting, for instance, eclipses. True. But no cigar. None of your theories hold up under microscopic scrutiny. Newton is a bit off; Einstein doesn't reconcile quantum physics, etc.

I agree that RE theory, as it presently stands, is much more elegant than FET. But does that make it truer? Again, we are biased toward more elegant theories because they are useful, because they are practical. Our brains deal better with simple theories than they deal with complex ones. I don't understand why we should expect that a human brain is capable of understanding the universe in the first place. Do we think a chimp could understand the universe? Surely not, because their brains aren't big enough. But why should we think our brains are big enough to understand the universe? The universe is probably much too complex for our little mammal brains to grasp. So, in practice, we tend to believe that the simple, elegant theories are true -- because it is useful for us to believe so. Newtonian physics works good enough for most things. We can engineer a lot of technology based upon theories which we know are probably imperfect simplifications of reality.

What is the main refutation of FET? That it is too complex. That too many theories are required to explain things. But don't you see that this is a cultural bias? We like theories that are practical, truth be damned. The RE scientists here have a problem with the theory of bendy light and the anti-moon. Why? Because those theories aren't as simple as, say, a RE and relativity. But we have absolutely no evidence that simple theories are BETTER theories. We prefer them only because they are more useful for our simple brains to deal with.

There is an old, old Jewish expression: "Man thinks, God laughs." The idea is that Man's brain can't comprehend God's creation. RE theorists, with all their confidence, make God laugh an awful lot.

Flat Earth General / Best Test
« on: December 24, 2009, 01:56:20 AM »
I believe the best test is for us to charter a flight over Antarctica and see what happens. I'll be willing to ante up some money for this, as long as at least a few girls come along... And we can all place bets on the results.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Intelligently designed star constellations
« on: December 23, 2009, 07:02:35 PM »
some people seem to have an issue with star constellations as viewed from different parts of the FE. Obviously stars spin around the north pole, but i think there is more to it than that. The density of stars as viewed from any location looks the same because stars are not random objects. they were carefully placed by God in a specific pattern to look the way they do.

Flat Earth Q&A / How was the Flat Earth created?
« on: December 22, 2009, 06:23:40 PM »
Is there a theory?

Flat Earth Q&A / What do FE'ers think of dinosaurs?
« on: December 22, 2009, 03:30:40 PM »
Ok, it has been explained to me over and over that not many here are religious like I am, and thus very few if any FEer's are motivated in their beliefs by the bible (despite the FAQ). So the bible is not my point, only my starting point. Like many Christians, I believe that dinosaurs certainly co-existed with humans. Because Adam was created in the first week and thus the dinos must have come and gone since then, while humans have been here all along.

But isn't the disappearance of the dinos most commonly explained by a giant meteor hitting the earth? I thought there were no giant meteors in FET? Why then did the dinos disappear? 

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Evidence Time moves slower in the South
« on: December 21, 2009, 03:22:50 PM »
I’ve been thinking about the problem of why a plane can travel a longer distance in a shorter period of time in the south relative to the north. One simple explanation is that time simply passes slower in the south. People age slower, move slower etc. But imagine that this condition only holds when you are at an elevation near the earth, and that at a higher elevation, such as a plane would travel, time goes back to passing at a speed much closer to that of the north. Try to picture such a time-field: slower to the south, faster to the north and at higher elevations. You end up with an inverted cone with its terminal point  exactly at the north pole.

So when a plane travels from say Buenos Aires to Sydney, the plane enters a zone in which time is travelling faster while at ground level time will be passing slower. To a passenger on the plane it will seem like a very long flight (it is), but when you arrive back on the ground in Sydney you will find that not nearly as much time has passed as you thought.

And here is some evidence for time passing slower in the south: economic development. Why are countries nearer the north so much more economically advanced than those in the South? Why did they experience the Industrial Revolution first? Perhaps it is because time simply passes quicker there, so they are able to get a lot more done. Human generations pass faster, knowledge is acquired faster, more chance for inventions, faster trade, etc.

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity vs Earth Acceleration. Why either?
« on: December 21, 2009, 01:09:59 AM »
The DE explanation for the earth constantly accelerating sounds complicated, without evidence, and thus highly unlikely. Why not look for a simpler explanation?

With a flat earth model you don't need the concepts of either Newtonion physics or general relativity. All you need is to understand that objects with weight are unstable when they are not at rest. Under a Newtonion regime, weight is a function of mass and gravity. But in the absence of this mystical force called gravity, the concepts of mass and weight are interchangeable. So forget about mass and focus on weight. Doesn't it seem very plausible that any object with any weight would simply be unstable when it is in the air, and would immediately return to its stable state of rest as fast as possible? As fast as possible being equal to a g force of acceleration? The concept of unstable states for particles is not new. For instance, electrons in high energy orbits are not likely to stay there long simply because they exist in an unstable state. Why not the same for large objects in the air? Seems a perfectly simple explanation, and doesn't require the more far-fetched theories of DE or a gravity field. 

Flat Earth Debate / New Idea on Sunrise/Sunsets
« on: December 21, 2009, 12:55:06 AM »
So far I have found explanations for Sunrise/sets in the FAQ to be unsatisfying. Bendy light sounds ludicrous, and I don't see an explanation for why the sun should appear bigger in the distance as it sets.

Then it hit me. When we look at the sun we are not seeing the object itself but the wavefront of the light generated by the sun. This wavefront will spherically diverge and thus grow larger with distance. Since the energy becomes more diffuse as the wavefront grows larger, the sun will also appear dimmer at the same time it appears larger.

But what about it's appearance to sink into the earth completely? This would again be explained by the spherical divergence of the wavefront. Since the sun is moving horizontally across the sky, it will appear lower in the sky with distance. Once it has traveled far enough, and grown large enough, the bottom portion of the wavefront will no longer be viewable by an observer in the distance, only the upper part, which will appear to grow even larger, until finally it has moved far enough away that the energy is so diffuse by the time it reaches an observer, it is no longer visible to the human eye.   

Let me know if this theory is not new here.

I've done some reading and apparently there is a case to be made from the bible that the earth is flat.

As well as a strong case that the earth is round:

I am the leader of a small 2nd True Christian Church so I don't take this matter lightly. We have recently broken away from the 1st True Christian Church over a matter of biblical interpretation regarding natural animal sexual behavior, which lead me to believe they were not heading down the true path. To make a long story short I am now in the position of leading vs merely following and thus my responsibilities of biblical interpretation have increased. A true believer accepts that the bible is the word of God and believes God does not deceive, therefore only a literal interpretation of the bible is correct. However, it is true that there are many passages in the bible which SEEM to contradict one another, making literal interpretation a sometimes easy, sometimes difficult, job. The reason God says things which SEEM to contradict is because God wants us to work hard at seeing the truth every day of our lives. If the bible were "easy to get", then the truth would be much less like a woman and more like a man, and humans would not have to struggle so hard to dig deeply into matters of great importance.

I am pretty convinced that this website is a joke and my main purpose here is to scorn not to listen, but I do have a question for those who really, really, really claim to believe in a FE: do any of your theories tie in clearly with biblical teaching about the earth? 

Suggestions & Concerns / My thread got deleted
« on: December 20, 2009, 01:32:20 AM »
Interesting. The thread I started got deleted. Was it because I posted the article about how this site is trolling for trolls? No? What was the reason then? I wasn't rude or abusive to anyone, so you can't claim it was my behavior. Yes, some people called me stupid. But it was them calling me stupid. Was I too stubborn? Is sheer stubborness a reason for deleting a thread here? Really? (Yes, I am posting this multiple times, since I expect it to be censored also.)

Flat Earth General / HoYava's Quantum Gravity Theory: No DE
« on: December 19, 2009, 03:17:48 PM »

On the FAQ page it claims that DE is part of the general model of FET. But HoYava's theory is gaining credibility and doesn't include DE. Is HoYava's theory a new part of the conspiracy?

Pages: [1]